James Gyakye Quayson
An Accra High Court yesterday dismissed an application filed by Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, which the Attorney General described as “one of the time wasting antics by counsel” to further delay the trial.
His lawyers had filed an application urging the court to stay the trial and refer Article 19(1) to the Supreme Court for interpretation due to what they described as rival interpretation placed on the article by the prosecution and the defence.
Article 19(1) states that “A person charged with a criminal offence shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court.”
Mr. Quayson has been charged with five counts of deceit of public officer, forgery of passport or travel certificate, knowingly making a false statutory statement, perjury and false declaration of office.
Justin Pwavra Teriwaja, moving the motion, indicated that the accused has on several occasions made a demand for further disclosures and the court directed the prosecution to make the disclosures but they only did partial disclosure and indicated that they have nothing else to disclose.
He said, in this regard, rival meanings have been placed on Article 19(1) as the prosecution on one hand contends that a fair hearing is guaranteed even if outstanding disclosures are not made, and the defence on the other hand contends that the right to a fair trial cannot be guaranteed as long as disclosures are outstanding while the case is on day-to-day basis.
“This is why we have brought this application that the issue of proper interpretation of Article 19(1) should be referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation,” Mr. Teriwaja said.
He added that the accused is a Member of Parliament and is required to perform his duties, and the day-to-day trial will hamper his ability to perform his duties in Parliament, stating further that “these are constitutional issues which only the Supreme Court can properly determine upon the referral by this court.”
The application was opposed by the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, who averred that the mandate of the High Court to refer a matter to the Supreme Court is conditional as Article 130(2) of the Constitution requires the presence of an issue relating to an interpretation or enforcement of the constitution.
He said there has not been a demonstration before the trial court any matter relating to the interpretation of the constitution as Article 19(1) is so clear and does not require any interpretation.
Mr. Dame said the prosecution has never placed any rival meaning on the said article except the ordinary meaning of fair trial, indicating that “the court will note that in my invitation for a day-to-day hearing, I did not even refer to Article 19(1).
“The fact that the applicant has an absurd or far-fetch meaning on the constitutional article does not require the court to refer the said constitutional article to the Supreme Court for interpretation,” he said.
He also argued that it could not be correct that an order of the court for a day-to-day trial raises an issue of interpretation of Article 19(1), neither could it be said that the issue of whether or not all disclosures have been filed raises the issue of interpretation.
“The application is clearly a misreading of the constitutional article and does not result in the referral of Article 19(1) to the Supreme Court for interpretation. The application is without basis and clearly one of the time wasting antics by counsel for the accused, and I pray that same is dismissed,” Mr. Dame added.
Justice Yanzuh, the presiding judge, in a ruling said the application failed to demonstrate the need for the trial court to refer Article 19(1) to the Supreme Court for interpretation and subsequently dismissed it.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak